nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Risen lord form
Dracolich's bad breath Unfortunately, you are not healed by negative energy in this shape - at least not from the breath of a dracolich. -- 2 January 2009 *The negative energy dragon's breath will damage, not heal, all undead. (It would need some additional scripting to handle undead differently.) This is not something unique to the risen lord shape. --The Krit 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Why the redundancy? I'm not following why the same information described in the Undead shape table, a clear & concise display of the Risen lord information, needs to be repeated in a separate article. Actually, there are similar articles for the other Undead shapes as well with the same redundancy. If it's just a matter of locating via search, wouldn't a redirect be more efficient? Through my own experience in document control, whenever one places the identical information in two or more locations, eventually they will be conflict because there is no automatic update index to both. Essentially, this is an accident waiting to happen. I haven't checked all the shifter shape feats for more of the same. Perhaps this is just a legacy article that was not scrubbed when the feat article was created? Dunno. Just trying to figure out what possible benefit there is in duplicating data. --Iconclast 22:12, May 22, 2012 (UTC) * Basically, Alaisiagae was looking at this version of the undead shape article and decided the information would be better presented if there were separate articles for each form. Personally, I am undecided on the best way to present the information about polymorph shapes (which is related to something I mentioned recently about skipping certain bandit articles). --The Krit 02:04, May 23, 2012 (UTC) :* That's fine... though I personally feel a comparative table is so much more lucid and revealing. It illustrates at a single glance, the advantages and shortcomings of each of the related shapes rather than needing to visit 3 different articles to glean the same info. But, if the presentation morphs (no pun intended) into a 3-article display, then the feat article should be purely navigational or an asynchrony can easily occur (and usually does) if both are not equally monitored. TBH, I see no disconnect or confusion with polymorph articles. Undead shape is a feat, not an effect or a spell. The fact that there is a visual change in the character is about all that is common. The feat has its own distinct merge, duration and dispel rules to establish the morphed form, rules that are significantly different than a standard polymorph. --Iconclast 02:53, May 23, 2012 (UTC) ::* That might be why Alaisiagae trimmed most of the duplicate info off the undead shape article immediately after creating this article. (Then added it back a few months alter? I don't know why that development happened.) By the way, have you looked at the talk page for undead shape (specifically, talk:undead shape#Shape_articles)? That's one place this question was raised earlier, so you can get some others' thoughts on the matter there. --The Krit 15:57, May 23, 2012 (UTC) Petrifiable? Doesn't this form fall into the "fleshless" category? I'd think it should also be immune to petrification unless there is something in the script to counter that aspect. The Lich lord, its NPC counterpart, has a death immunity bug so am wondering if this form also has its anomalies as well. --Iconclast (talk) 03:44, November 14, 2016 (UTC) * Tested. Risen Lord (or Lich Lord) are able to be petrified. They spawn a save vs. Fort the same as any "flesh" creature. However, the term "appearance" as used throughout the petrification articles is really only a constant chosen in the toolset rather than a graphic appearance as in visualized imagery. Obviously, all the D&D imagery related to lich-type creatures depict a fleshless entity and the mythology of its origin pretty much supports that fact. The assignment to spellsIsImmuneToPetrification was done somewhat arbitrarily IMO. Neither Heurodis nor DragoLich trigger a save yet all others falling into the Lich category do. The same inconsistency occurs in other appearance types as well. For those similarly-confounded by the choices made, a compehensive list of appearances that fall into the "Immune to Petrification" category is as follows: ALLIP ANIMATED_CHEST BASILISK BAT_HORROR COCKATRICE DEMI_LICH DRACOLICH DRAGON_SHADOW DWARF_GOLEM (metal golem, type 1) DWARF_HALFORC (metal golem, type 2) ELEMENTAL_AIR ELEMENTAL_AIR_ELDER ELEMENTAL_EARTH ELEMENTAL_EARTH_ELDER ELEMENTAL_FIRE ELEMENTAL_FIRE_ELDER ELEMENTAL_WATER ELEMENTAL_WATER_ELDER GOLEM_ADAMANTIUM GOLEM_BONE GOLEM_CLAY GOLEM_IRON GOLEM_MITHRAL GOLEM_STONE GORGON HEURODIS_LICH LANTERN_ARCHON MEDUSA MINDFLAYER_ALHOON SHADOW SHADOW_FIEND SHIELD_GUARDIAN SKELETAL_DEVOURER SKELETON_CHIEFTAIN SKELETON_COMMON SKELETON_MAGE SKELETON_PRIEST SKELETON_WARRIOR SKELETON_WARRIOR_1 SPECTRE WILL_O_WISP WRAITH --Iconclast (talk) 00:28, November 16, 2016 (UTC) * No, I would not say that "appearance" as used in the petrification articles is a constant chosen in the Toolset. More accurately, "appearance" is a line in appearance.2da. The Toolset constants are symbolic names for the line numbers, and the associated graphical imagery is specified in the RACE column. So I'd go with the line being the primary embodiment of "appearance". I think the real issue you have is with the phrase "skeletal appearance", which is a concise summary of the above list intended for people who don't care to parse said list. For example, it's pretty easy for most people to look at a skeleton mage and observe that it is skeletal. It is much harder to look at the same creature and realize its appearance corresponds to SKELETON_MAGE, then check the list and see that if it is included. Note that you cannot easily reverse that process; if you look at the list for a name that might fit what you see, then you are likely to get a false positive. How many exceptions to the "skeletal appearance" summary have you found? So far, all your examples are the LICH appearance type (line 39; model c_lich). If that summary is too far from accurate, we can change it, but for one omission?. It looks like someone (MrZork) thought to add a note to flesh to stone that BioWare forgot LICH in the list (interestingly, with an edit comment noting that the significance is due to risen lord form). It doesn't look like anyone thought the other articles warranted such a note, though. (I'd be inclined to move it from flesh to stone to petrification and maybe copy it here.) --The Krit (talk) 03:47, November 17, 2016 (UTC)